Jim, you raise a good point (or more) about the kinds of arguments that work.
The problem with moral arguments is that they are so nebulous and subjective that they will never defeat a person who just doesn't want to change. I can think of many examples, but none seems to be politically correct to comment on here, so I will leave that up to imagination. I will summarize by saying any moral position can have a contrary moral position that is just as morally valid. However, moral positions are indeed what motivate many people. On the other hand, logical positions (contrasting strongly when the two may not always be at odds) stand on the strength of the logic and can be difficult to refute if one accepts the premises. What we all need to recognize is when we argue, which kind of person are we arguing with - one that will accept our moral stance and agree with us (after all, if they don't, we lost the argument) or one that will accept our premises and yield to logic. The general public often comprises people that mix the two - and they don't recognize when they cross logic and moral boundaries - hence our task is that much more difficult. Cheers, Jim On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 16:28, James Crants <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim, > > Yes, any tongue-in-cheek comments flew right over my head, so I was taking > everything in earnest. I should have realized from your earlier references > to Elton that you at least recognized exotic invasives as an ecological > problem. > > I think I've sown my own bit of confusion by arguing that exotics are > ecologically different from natives. Not only might it not matter, as you > suggest, but by phrasing my point in terms of exotics versus natives, I've > probably given the impression that I'm just as worked up about wheat, cows, > and dandelions as I am about buckthorn, earthworms, and purple loosestrife > (to give some examples from my own region, Minnesota, USA). I probably > shouldn't be surprised if people think my views on the matter are more rigid > and compartmentalized than they really are. > > You may be right that it is logically better to argue that we shouldn't be > conducting unnecessary experiments with unknown outcomes, rather than making > moral appeals. Personally, I think both kinds of arguments (rational and > moral) are needed. People can be persuaded by reason, but they aren't often > strongly motivated by it. We need reason to understand the likely outcomes > of different possible courses of action, and appeals to human values to get > people to care about those outcomes. With moral arguments alone, though, I > agree that the argument just goes on indefinitely, with neither side ever > feeling compelled to admit defeat. Unfortunately, the loudest side "wins" > moral debates, and that seems never to be the side I'm on. > > Jim >
